If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It's a little more than that really. It also affirms that the 2nd Amendment in fact protects an individual right and not a collective right. That debate has been raging my entire life, and now it's settled once and for all. That means outright bans on handguns, rifles and shotguns are unconstitutional.

Bingo!...Getting rid of the collective mindset is absolutely paramount.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown

According to this ruling, it would have to be DC. States do not have to abide by the 2nd amendment. It has not been read to apply to them. That is the issue that will be decided if the case in Chicago or San Francisco makes it up to the Supreme Court.

That's the first time I've heard that, can you cite your source?

The states most certainly do have to abide by the Bill of Rights, including but not limited to the 2nd Amendment.

Stevens' dissent--egad!
Posted by David Hardy ∑ 26 June 2008 02:20 PM
Comment on to previous post points out at p.2 of the Stevens dissent he refers to NFA and US v. Miller: "Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that..."

Same mistake the 9th Circus made years ago and had to issue a new opinion, since Miller was never convicted -- commentators noted this was pretty suggestive the court hadn't bothered to read Miller before citing it. First thing you look for in reading a case is what happened below, and what the Court do to that. Very first thing.

I'd add that at 41 he refers to:

"In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating the 'National Guard of the several States,' Perpich 496 U.S. at 341 and nn. 9-10."

Reading that part of Perpich v. Dodd: It says in 1901 President Roosevelt called for reforming the militia. He didn't create the National Guard (where would he have had the authority?)

On the next page Perpich says that Congress in 1903 enacted the Dick Act, which created the "National Guard of the Several States." Footnote 11 of that opinion, referring to creation of the Guard, begins: "The Act of January 21, 1903, 32 Stat. 775, provided in part..." So I guess he didn't read the Perpich case, either, let alone verify the dates and who did what.

And none of the four signing onto this opinion, and none of their clerks, saw these items?

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

I love how this clown thinks. According to Breyer, the First Amendment doesn't protect political speech during an election year, the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, the Eighth Amendment doesn't permit the states to execute child rapists, the Geneva and Hague Conventions give POW status to unlawful combatants, and they have the right of Habeas Corpus, even though no law says or implies that. What in the name of National Security do they teach in law schools? More importantly, what do the smoke in them?

WILMETTE, Ill. -- Wilmette has suspended enforcement of its 19-year-old ordinance banning handgun possession in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that appears to invalidate such bans.

In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, a prohibition similar to those used in several major cities, including Chicago, and a handful of suburbs including Wilmette, Evanston, Winnetka and Oak Park.

"The Law Department and the Police Department have suspended enforcement of the ordinance pending further review by the Village Board," Wilmette village attorney Tim Frenzer said Thursday. "Based on the decision today, at a minimum it calls into serious question the continued viability of the ordinance."

Frenzer said questions remain about how directly the court's decision will impact local gun laws in Wilmette and other parts of the country. Washington is not a state, and each state has its own legal language governing the right to bear arms.

You are quite right here John, but if we had lost this, it would have been devastating.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the Court and give the finger to the dissenters in this case. However, if you are a member of GOA or the NRA, you can't prop your feet up yet. That was all I was trying to say. This ruling is very, very narrow in scope. You can tell the Court respected the Amici Curiae presented by the DoJ , and gave it a 20 foot birth. Basically the machine gun ban of '34 stands as does Miller. So citizens can only currently challenge laws that ban a weapon that is 'in common use'. By definition, weapons that are currently banned are not 'in common use'. That means, even though a complete ban on 'handguns' is not acceptable, a ban on the .460 Smith & Weapon Magnum is perfectly acceptable, because this high powered handgun is hardly in common use.

When will these idiot gun controllers learn that a tool is a tool is a tool, but intent makes violence?

Oh, and to anyone who believes this decision doesn't apply to states proper, you are wrong. D.C. isn't a state, but SCOTUS case law applies to all SCOTUS cases, and to those cases in lesser courts. As a matter of fact, the soon-to-be-ex mayer of Chicago is going fetal around Chicago's handgun ban, which is soon to be challenged and overturned. This decision *does* apply to the states as equally as it applies to D.C. However, the scope of this decision is so narrow, that it does little to flesh out what exactly 'reasonable regulation' is. That is our next target while we have a worthy SCOTUS, to determine exactly what regulation is reasonable.

I have a simple idea. Any weapon of lesser power than a crew-served military weapon should be protected under the 2A. If one soldier can carry and operate it, then it a citizen has the right to carry that weapon. I doubt the Courts, States, and Brady Group will see it so simple.